Cystogram follow-up in the management of traumatic bladder disruption

Kenji Inaba, Mark McKenney, Felipe Munera, Marc De Moya, Peter P. Lopez, Carl I. Schulman, Fahim A. Habib, Amy J. Goldberg, Richard Mullins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The utility of obtaining a routine cystogram after the repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruption before urethral catheter removal is unknown. This study was designed to examine whether follow-up cystogram evaluation after traumatic bladder disruption affected the clinical management of these injuries. We hypothesized that routine cystograms, after operative repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruptions, provide no clinically useful information and may be eliminated in the management of these injuries. Methods: Our prospectively collected trauma database was retrospectively reviewed for all ICD-9 867.0 and 867.1 coded bladder injuries over a 6-year period ending in June 2004. Demographics, clinical injury data, detailed operative records, and imaging studies were reviewed for each patient. Bladder injuries were categorized as intraperitoneal (IP) or extraperitoneal (EP) bladder disruptions based on imaging results and operative exploration. Patients with IP injuries were further subdivided into those with "simple" dome disruptions or through-and-through penetrating injuries and "complex" injuries involving the trigone or ureter reimplantation. All patients sustaining isolated ureteric or urethral injury were excluded from further analysis. Results: In all, 20,647 trauma patients were screened for bladder injury. Out of this group, there were 50 IP (47 simple, 3 complex) and 37 EP injuries available for analysis. All IP injuries underwent operative repair. Eight of the IP injuries (all simple) had no postoperative cystogram and all were doing well at 1- to 4-week follow-up. The remaining 42 patients underwent a postoperative cystogram at 15.3 ± 7.3 days (range 7 to 36 days). All simple IP injuries had a negative postoperative cystogram. The only positive study was in one of the three complex IP injuries. In the EP group, 21.6% had positive cystograms requiring further follow-up and intervention. Conclusions: Patients sustaining extraperitoneal and complex intraperitoneal bladder disruptions require routine cystogram follow-up. In those patients undergoing repair of a simple intraperitoneal bladder disruption, however, routine follow-up cystograms did not affect clinical management. Further prospective evaluation to determine the optimal timing of catheter removal in this patient population is warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)23-28
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Volume60
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Urinary Bladder
Wounds and Injuries
Cystography
Urinary Catheters
Replantation
International Classification of Diseases
Ureter
Catheters
Demography
Databases

Keywords

  • Bladder
  • Computed tomography
  • Diagnostic imaging
  • Radiography
  • Wounds and injuries
  • X-ray

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Cystogram follow-up in the management of traumatic bladder disruption. / Inaba, Kenji; McKenney, Mark; Munera, Felipe; De Moya, Marc; Lopez, Peter P.; Schulman, Carl I.; Habib, Fahim A.; Goldberg, Amy J.; Mullins, Richard.

In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 60, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 23-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Inaba, K, McKenney, M, Munera, F, De Moya, M, Lopez, PP, Schulman, CI, Habib, FA, Goldberg, AJ & Mullins, R 2006, 'Cystogram follow-up in the management of traumatic bladder disruption', Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ta.0000200096.44452.8a
Inaba, Kenji ; McKenney, Mark ; Munera, Felipe ; De Moya, Marc ; Lopez, Peter P. ; Schulman, Carl I. ; Habib, Fahim A. ; Goldberg, Amy J. ; Mullins, Richard. / Cystogram follow-up in the management of traumatic bladder disruption. In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care. 2006 ; Vol. 60, No. 1. pp. 23-28.
@article{f33889b8c1c946e2af3a0259ef8bbcf3,
title = "Cystogram follow-up in the management of traumatic bladder disruption",
abstract = "Background: The utility of obtaining a routine cystogram after the repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruption before urethral catheter removal is unknown. This study was designed to examine whether follow-up cystogram evaluation after traumatic bladder disruption affected the clinical management of these injuries. We hypothesized that routine cystograms, after operative repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruptions, provide no clinically useful information and may be eliminated in the management of these injuries. Methods: Our prospectively collected trauma database was retrospectively reviewed for all ICD-9 867.0 and 867.1 coded bladder injuries over a 6-year period ending in June 2004. Demographics, clinical injury data, detailed operative records, and imaging studies were reviewed for each patient. Bladder injuries were categorized as intraperitoneal (IP) or extraperitoneal (EP) bladder disruptions based on imaging results and operative exploration. Patients with IP injuries were further subdivided into those with {"}simple{"} dome disruptions or through-and-through penetrating injuries and {"}complex{"} injuries involving the trigone or ureter reimplantation. All patients sustaining isolated ureteric or urethral injury were excluded from further analysis. Results: In all, 20,647 trauma patients were screened for bladder injury. Out of this group, there were 50 IP (47 simple, 3 complex) and 37 EP injuries available for analysis. All IP injuries underwent operative repair. Eight of the IP injuries (all simple) had no postoperative cystogram and all were doing well at 1- to 4-week follow-up. The remaining 42 patients underwent a postoperative cystogram at 15.3 ± 7.3 days (range 7 to 36 days). All simple IP injuries had a negative postoperative cystogram. The only positive study was in one of the three complex IP injuries. In the EP group, 21.6{\%} had positive cystograms requiring further follow-up and intervention. Conclusions: Patients sustaining extraperitoneal and complex intraperitoneal bladder disruptions require routine cystogram follow-up. In those patients undergoing repair of a simple intraperitoneal bladder disruption, however, routine follow-up cystograms did not affect clinical management. Further prospective evaluation to determine the optimal timing of catheter removal in this patient population is warranted.",
keywords = "Bladder, Computed tomography, Diagnostic imaging, Radiography, Wounds and injuries, X-ray",
author = "Kenji Inaba and Mark McKenney and Felipe Munera and {De Moya}, Marc and Lopez, {Peter P.} and Schulman, {Carl I.} and Habib, {Fahim A.} and Goldberg, {Amy J.} and Richard Mullins",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.ta.0000200096.44452.8a",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "23--28",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cystogram follow-up in the management of traumatic bladder disruption

AU - Inaba, Kenji

AU - McKenney, Mark

AU - Munera, Felipe

AU - De Moya, Marc

AU - Lopez, Peter P.

AU - Schulman, Carl I.

AU - Habib, Fahim A.

AU - Goldberg, Amy J.

AU - Mullins, Richard

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - Background: The utility of obtaining a routine cystogram after the repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruption before urethral catheter removal is unknown. This study was designed to examine whether follow-up cystogram evaluation after traumatic bladder disruption affected the clinical management of these injuries. We hypothesized that routine cystograms, after operative repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruptions, provide no clinically useful information and may be eliminated in the management of these injuries. Methods: Our prospectively collected trauma database was retrospectively reviewed for all ICD-9 867.0 and 867.1 coded bladder injuries over a 6-year period ending in June 2004. Demographics, clinical injury data, detailed operative records, and imaging studies were reviewed for each patient. Bladder injuries were categorized as intraperitoneal (IP) or extraperitoneal (EP) bladder disruptions based on imaging results and operative exploration. Patients with IP injuries were further subdivided into those with "simple" dome disruptions or through-and-through penetrating injuries and "complex" injuries involving the trigone or ureter reimplantation. All patients sustaining isolated ureteric or urethral injury were excluded from further analysis. Results: In all, 20,647 trauma patients were screened for bladder injury. Out of this group, there were 50 IP (47 simple, 3 complex) and 37 EP injuries available for analysis. All IP injuries underwent operative repair. Eight of the IP injuries (all simple) had no postoperative cystogram and all were doing well at 1- to 4-week follow-up. The remaining 42 patients underwent a postoperative cystogram at 15.3 ± 7.3 days (range 7 to 36 days). All simple IP injuries had a negative postoperative cystogram. The only positive study was in one of the three complex IP injuries. In the EP group, 21.6% had positive cystograms requiring further follow-up and intervention. Conclusions: Patients sustaining extraperitoneal and complex intraperitoneal bladder disruptions require routine cystogram follow-up. In those patients undergoing repair of a simple intraperitoneal bladder disruption, however, routine follow-up cystograms did not affect clinical management. Further prospective evaluation to determine the optimal timing of catheter removal in this patient population is warranted.

AB - Background: The utility of obtaining a routine cystogram after the repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruption before urethral catheter removal is unknown. This study was designed to examine whether follow-up cystogram evaluation after traumatic bladder disruption affected the clinical management of these injuries. We hypothesized that routine cystograms, after operative repair of intraperitoneal bladder disruptions, provide no clinically useful information and may be eliminated in the management of these injuries. Methods: Our prospectively collected trauma database was retrospectively reviewed for all ICD-9 867.0 and 867.1 coded bladder injuries over a 6-year period ending in June 2004. Demographics, clinical injury data, detailed operative records, and imaging studies were reviewed for each patient. Bladder injuries were categorized as intraperitoneal (IP) or extraperitoneal (EP) bladder disruptions based on imaging results and operative exploration. Patients with IP injuries were further subdivided into those with "simple" dome disruptions or through-and-through penetrating injuries and "complex" injuries involving the trigone or ureter reimplantation. All patients sustaining isolated ureteric or urethral injury were excluded from further analysis. Results: In all, 20,647 trauma patients were screened for bladder injury. Out of this group, there were 50 IP (47 simple, 3 complex) and 37 EP injuries available for analysis. All IP injuries underwent operative repair. Eight of the IP injuries (all simple) had no postoperative cystogram and all were doing well at 1- to 4-week follow-up. The remaining 42 patients underwent a postoperative cystogram at 15.3 ± 7.3 days (range 7 to 36 days). All simple IP injuries had a negative postoperative cystogram. The only positive study was in one of the three complex IP injuries. In the EP group, 21.6% had positive cystograms requiring further follow-up and intervention. Conclusions: Patients sustaining extraperitoneal and complex intraperitoneal bladder disruptions require routine cystogram follow-up. In those patients undergoing repair of a simple intraperitoneal bladder disruption, however, routine follow-up cystograms did not affect clinical management. Further prospective evaluation to determine the optimal timing of catheter removal in this patient population is warranted.

KW - Bladder

KW - Computed tomography

KW - Diagnostic imaging

KW - Radiography

KW - Wounds and injuries

KW - X-ray

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646079649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646079649&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ta.0000200096.44452.8a

DO - 10.1097/01.ta.0000200096.44452.8a

M3 - Article

C2 - 16456432

AN - SCOPUS:33646079649

VL - 60

SP - 23

EP - 28

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 1

ER -